10 Comments

1. Lara on July 12, 2017 at 4:28 pm

   Awesome guys. When I come across a difficult analysis I’ll record the process.

   It doesn’t happen every week, but it does happen 🙂

2. Melanie Wilson on July 12, 2017 at 3:40 pm

   Lara…wanted to mention one more thing when you can address it….I am having a little trouble understanding the rule…..’you cannot have multiples within multiples’.
   1. I need a better definition/understanding of what that means and an example.
   2. What is the correct count in its place and why.
   3. As students learning, how can we better spot to use w-x-y rather than a-b-c. [For now, in between your reports, I ‘pencil’ it in temporarily if I can not figure out what else a corrective move is doing; and then adjust it when your report comes out….realizing that you can not ‘hit it out of the park’ all the time either.

   Again…when you can…thank you…Melanie

   • Lara on July 12, 2017 at 4:32 pm

     When a correction won’t subdivide as a simple A-B-C then consider W-X-Y.

     The maximum number of corrective structures in a multiple is three. So the maximum is W-X-Y-X-Z. With W, Y and Z being the three corrective structures that are counted as individuals within the multiple.

     And so if we were to label any of W, Y or Z as multiples themselves, we would be increasing the maximum beyond three which would violate that EW rule.

     So, for example, if we had W-X-Y-X-Z, and each of W, Y and Z themselves were labelled W-X-Y then within each of W, Y and Z there would be two corrective structures. The total number of corrective structures within the whole correction would be 2 X 3 = 6. Which is > 3 so the rule is violated.

     Does this make sense?

     • Lara on July 12, 2017 at 4:33 pm

       So the only correct way to label multiples is within each of W, Y and Z they may only be labelled as single simple corrections. So they must have labelling of A-B-C, or in the case of a triangle within a multiple A-B-C-D-E.

       • Melanie Wilson on July 13, 2017 at 12:09 pm

         Lara…based on your explanations…let’s see if I am understanding via posing an example:

         In your July 12 evening report, you show Minor 2 as possibly forming as a double zigzag counted as minute W-X-Y. If you were to label w-x-y within W rather than simple a-b-c patterns, the entire pattern, when one includes Y of Minor 2 would contain 4 multiples which breaks the EW rule.

         Am I on the ‘right track’ of understanding this?

         Thank you…Melanie

         Am I understanding this

         • Lara on July 13, 2017 at 3:33 pm

           You have it exactly right.

3. Melanie Wilson on July 12, 2017 at 1:09 pm

   Lara…thank you. Your analysis is very useful. By showing a video of your process and expressing how and why you eliminate certain counts using elliott wave and tech analysis, it helps me better understand which guidelines/rules are acceptable/not acceptable in aiding you to form a higher probability count.

4. KYONG PARK on July 12, 2017 at 8:15 am

   Lara

   The video is GREAT!! Please keep it up.

5. amjad abu tarboush on July 12, 2017 at 3:29 am

   Lara
   Doing this analysis is intresting and benifits us in following the market
   Thanks

   • brandon on July 12, 2017 at 9:23 am

     Thanks for the great learning tools you provide